Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-discuss: FX Claim GDNA - Germ-line DNA altered B4 2020

Author: chrisran.bma e-mail
Conversation: Re: fx-discuss: FX Claim GDNA - Germ-line DNA altered B4 2020 ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-discuss ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To:
Followed-Up-By: chrisran.bma e-mail's post
Date: Wed Jul 25, 2018 08:35 am

chrisran.bma e-mail




Hi,

Not really sure if this is relevant, but from

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44953100

"In a statement, the Court of Justice (ECJ) said it "takes the view, first of all, that organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs within the meaning of the GMO Directive".

In the opinion of ECJ Advocate General Michal Bobek, "mutagenesis" covers any alteration to a genome - effectively the instruction booklet for building a living thing."


Does this mean ooplasmic transfer creates a "genetically modified organism"?


It seems to me this tends to add to the impression that the experts aren't entirely clear about what genetic modification means. If that term is ambiguous, shouldn't we be looking more at intent of the claim and the intent seems to me to be: Is a simple defect correction or anything more substantial ethically allowed to happen?

Regards

Chris

> On 21 January 2017 at 14:34 "chrisran.bma e-mail" <chrisran.bma@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >FDA considers it “germline gene transfer”
>
> Hi, I will admit this is much better push back from my claim that we have an expert saying it is 'human germ-line genetic modification'. However, this gets you to a position where some experts think it is and some experts think it isn't. This still seems ambiguous rather than breaking your way. If ambiguous we should look to intent and the intent seems to be to ask if it is ethically allowed to happen.
>

>
> There is also the question of whether manipulation is the operative word such that there is the possibility of there being dispute over whether it is a modification but wider agreement that it is a manipulation.
>

On 21 January 2017 at 08:43 Neal Gafter <neal@gafter.com> wrote:


A quick note on the FDA's take on these questions. The FDA considers ooplasmic transfer a form of "germline gene transfer", but considers it "misleading" to call it "genetic modification"[1]. From a transcript of the FDA's briefing[2]:

Here are the three famous words, germline
genetic modification, used by J.C. Barritt in the
publication last year. There were four authors on
this paper. The three other authors do not agree
with this wording. So, it only appeared in an
abstract; it didn't appear in the regular text. We
don't agree because we don't think that it is
modification. It is a kind of difference, change,
or maybe I don't have the right word. It is
different from what has ever happened but in my
opinion it is not germline genetic modification.


There is a more extensive discussion in that briefing, including a reference to the AAAS's (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 2000 report giving a definition of (germline) genetic modification, and a discussion of the fact that it is currently unknown whether or not the children that were produced using ooplasmic transfer do in fact have the third-parent mDNA in their germ lines, which is a requirement of the claim.

[1] http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=2795
[2] http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/ac/02/transcripts/3855t1.htm





source



All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL